Discussant's response to controlling audit quality: A responsibility of the profession?;

Page 1

Discussant's Response to
Controlling Audit Quality:
A Responsibility of the Profession?
Gordon L. Murray
Haskins & Sells
While I have done a lot of speaking over the years, I have never participated in a meeting with this particular format. I assume that my comments are to be directed toward stimulating discussion during the period that will follow. In the interest of stimulating such discussion and to preserve my own integrity, my comments on this question will be strictly as I see it.
I have studied Andy Marincovich's paper and it appears to me that the following points emerge:
• The title is "Controlling Audit Quality: A Responsibiltiy of the Pro­fession?"
with a question mark. To me the question mark is the most significant item in that tide.
• Andy's paper says ". . . it may be constructive to inquire whether the programs of the profession—either in being or under study—are adequate to discharge this responsibility." This statement appears to assume that the answer to the question is that controlling audit quality is a responsibility of the pro­fession.
Is that really so?
• Reference is made to the Beamer Committee on the matter of continuing education requirement. While Mr. Beamer was a partner of mine before his retirement, it does not necessarily follow that I agree with him on continuing education. However, I also don't presume to be an expert in this particular area. Therefore, I will dispose of the continuing education matter by simply saying that what I have seen adopted so far is a very feeble, and perhaps unnecessary effort. I also have a bias that formal education for a practitioner has very definite limitations and that essentially a person's continuing education is what he does in connection with researching to find solutions to particular problems occurring in day-to-day practice. To show how far I am probably away from current thinking on this subject, my own firm now has a continuing education program that is required for all persons through the age of 50. The best part of this program, to me, is that I am now 56 and therefore I am not going to be involved.
• The paper suggests that ". . . character checks on those entering the profession may be an important step in strengthening the standards of the accounting profession." My own experience has included work for two Big 8 accounting firms, three industrial firms as the chief financial officer, and a major firm of management consultants, all of which have involved extensive executive recruiting activities. I can only say that I believe there are very real limitations to what can be accomplished through any attempt to conduct "checks of char-
39